I am reading the book No Perfect People Allowed, by John Burke. Chapter 7, "How Do You Feel about Gays? The Tolerance Litmus Test–Q2," left me somewhat dissatisfied. Now, let me hasten to say, I am not critiquing the book, nor am I arguing with the author. What I want to do is try to answer some questions the chapter raised in my mind.
I know many people within the church "hate gays." At least, their response to homosexuality is perceived as hate by many. We believers have a difficult task set before us as we deal with the issue of same-sex relationships. We have been boxed into a corner by our culture, which is moving closer and closer to an unprecedented acceptance of homosexuality as a normal and acceptable sexual expression.
By the way, I purposely have chosen to not use the terms gay or lesbian. While employing male/female homosexuality and related terms might be a little unwieldy, I prefer them to the alternatives. Within this article and others to follow, my reasoning for this decision will become evident.
In order to fully state my positions on homosexuality, I need to make some definitive statements on the issue. Number one, homosexuals are not necessarily bad people. Number two, homosexuals are not beyond the scope of God’s grace. Number three, homosexuals should be welcome in any church. Number four, I personally do not "hate" gays.
Having made the preceding statements, I must also add that I do not accept homosexual behavior as normal or natural. Homosexual behavior fails to conform to the biblical ideal for sexual relationships. While some might want to make the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual sex "cultural prohibitions," we must come to terms with the consistent rejection of homosexuality in Scripture, a rejection that covers a number of historical cultures. No evidence of any kind exists showing biblical support for homosexuality.
Further, I do not believe anyone is "homosexual." Sexual behavior does not define a person. Sexual behavior, simply, is a kind of conduct. If sexual behavior defines a person, then we would have a definition distinguishing homosexuals from heterosexuals in a clear and substantive kind of way. Yet, no such definition exists; nor can one.
We are, first, human beings; second, we are either male or female. Thus, from a biological perspective, we are all born predisposed to heterosexual behavior. That one fact is irrefutable.
So, what do we do, as pastors in particular, when we try to be welcoming to homosexuals, but, are compelled to address those texts which sound awfully judgmental of homosexuality? What do we say? Do we avoid the issue altogether? Will we fear offending someone who is homosexual and worships with us on a regular basis, and so, avoid an unpopular position? An even more pressing question for many is how do we wisely address homosexuality, knowing families in our congregations have children or siblings they love who are involved in homosexual relationships?
Do we avoid adultery, on-line pornography, drug-abuse, or bigotry because we, most likely, will have someone in our audience who is guilty of one of these behaviors? In fact, what are we telling people when we try to make them comfortable in God’s presence? Jesus was in the behavior changing business. He was brutally honest with those he met, telling many to "go and sin no more." Seems to me, if we are not frank and honest about unacceptable behavior, we have failed to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. If we affirm what the Bible rejects, are we not guilty then of adding to or taking away from the Truth?
Modern ideas about homosexuality are not rooted in the truth, but, instead, in feelings. The unnaturalness of homosexuality is clear. No one is born with physical suited for homosexual sex. When babies are born, they are either male or female. They are born predisposed to heterosexuality.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Monday, October 08, 2007
Study 40 “Jumping from the Pinnacle”
Several weeks ago, I read a report on the web site mondaymorninginsight about a pastor in Florida who was planning to allow cameras in his home for broadcast on the Internet. His goal was to show non-believers that he is just like them. He wants non-Christians to see his life as it is in order to prove he is authentic.
At the cost of appearing to be critical of someone who obviously is serious about reaching the unchurched, I will make some observations.
In defending the pastor’s decision, some have argued that if the lost are reached, surely the method is good and justified. Really? Paul observed to the Philippians that some "preached Christ even of envy and strife" (Ph. 1.15). Those who did so, Paul noted, were preaching the Gospel. He rejoiced in that fact. Yet, he did not recommend their actions as either an appropriate or acceptable evangelistic methodology, even though the approach "worked."
If cameras in one’s home is a defensible evangelistic method, are we all, then, expected to open our homes in such a manner and sacrifice our privacy? Are we called to give up the integrity of our marriages and families for the sake of the Gospel? Further, does the biblical call to authentic Christianity require such actions?
No doubt, as believers, we are all under the demand of authenticity in the expression of our faith. Yet, how can we know what we must do to prove we are "real"?
Quite frankly, beyond the guidelines of Scripture, no other counsel can be found through which we can determine how to express the Gospel. In one on-line discussion I had about this issue, one person stated that this pastor’s actions did not go against the Bible, meaning, I suppose, that he had not compromised any stated biblical evangelistic directive. Such an argument, though, does not prove that cameras in one’s home is consistent with Scriptural principles.
The purest evangelistic method is rooted in person-to-person relationships. If a believer is to establish his authenticity, he will do so only insofar as his actions are consistent with his stated beliefs. My life, as viewed through a TV screen or computer monitor, might or might not be a real expression of who I am. In fact, even if I put a camera in my home, some things would be off-limits. No cameras would be allowed in bedrooms, bathrooms; none would show heated "discussions" between me and my wife. In other words, a scripted image would be broadcast.
Yet, in a real-life relationship, I cannot fake it. I might pretend to be a friend, but, ultimately, events will require me to be authentic. Jesus taught this truth in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Only in the real world of human relationships can I prove the truthfulness of my profession of Jesus as Lord of my life.
Consider the demands of Jesus. He declared that we prove the validity of our commitment to him in selfless acts of kindness to the hungry, the thirst, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the prisoner (Matt. 25.31-46).
In his wilderness temptation experience, Jesus rejected the dramatic as an appropriate way to accomplish his call. Satan reasoned (based on Scripture) that if Jesus would leap from the pinnacle of the Temple, angels would rescue him. His point seemed to be that the crowds, being sufficiently impressed by this dramatic display, would accept Jesus as the Messiah. Thus, they would flock to his cause (If it works, what’s wrong with it, Satan argued?).
Jesus flatly refused to employ such a method. If he did so, should we not do the same? Jesus proved his authenticity in the real world. People who met him were impressed by his authenticity. Even his enemies knew he was real; that is what so frightened them that they took his life.
TV reality is not real, just entertaining. Authentic Christianity stays true even when life ceases to be fun and entertaining.
At the cost of appearing to be critical of someone who obviously is serious about reaching the unchurched, I will make some observations.
In defending the pastor’s decision, some have argued that if the lost are reached, surely the method is good and justified. Really? Paul observed to the Philippians that some "preached Christ even of envy and strife" (Ph. 1.15). Those who did so, Paul noted, were preaching the Gospel. He rejoiced in that fact. Yet, he did not recommend their actions as either an appropriate or acceptable evangelistic methodology, even though the approach "worked."
If cameras in one’s home is a defensible evangelistic method, are we all, then, expected to open our homes in such a manner and sacrifice our privacy? Are we called to give up the integrity of our marriages and families for the sake of the Gospel? Further, does the biblical call to authentic Christianity require such actions?
No doubt, as believers, we are all under the demand of authenticity in the expression of our faith. Yet, how can we know what we must do to prove we are "real"?
Quite frankly, beyond the guidelines of Scripture, no other counsel can be found through which we can determine how to express the Gospel. In one on-line discussion I had about this issue, one person stated that this pastor’s actions did not go against the Bible, meaning, I suppose, that he had not compromised any stated biblical evangelistic directive. Such an argument, though, does not prove that cameras in one’s home is consistent with Scriptural principles.
The purest evangelistic method is rooted in person-to-person relationships. If a believer is to establish his authenticity, he will do so only insofar as his actions are consistent with his stated beliefs. My life, as viewed through a TV screen or computer monitor, might or might not be a real expression of who I am. In fact, even if I put a camera in my home, some things would be off-limits. No cameras would be allowed in bedrooms, bathrooms; none would show heated "discussions" between me and my wife. In other words, a scripted image would be broadcast.
Yet, in a real-life relationship, I cannot fake it. I might pretend to be a friend, but, ultimately, events will require me to be authentic. Jesus taught this truth in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Only in the real world of human relationships can I prove the truthfulness of my profession of Jesus as Lord of my life.
Consider the demands of Jesus. He declared that we prove the validity of our commitment to him in selfless acts of kindness to the hungry, the thirst, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the prisoner (Matt. 25.31-46).
In his wilderness temptation experience, Jesus rejected the dramatic as an appropriate way to accomplish his call. Satan reasoned (based on Scripture) that if Jesus would leap from the pinnacle of the Temple, angels would rescue him. His point seemed to be that the crowds, being sufficiently impressed by this dramatic display, would accept Jesus as the Messiah. Thus, they would flock to his cause (If it works, what’s wrong with it, Satan argued?).
Jesus flatly refused to employ such a method. If he did so, should we not do the same? Jesus proved his authenticity in the real world. People who met him were impressed by his authenticity. Even his enemies knew he was real; that is what so frightened them that they took his life.
TV reality is not real, just entertaining. Authentic Christianity stays true even when life ceases to be fun and entertaining.
Study 38 “Who Is Wise?” Part 9
The spiritual and theological legacy of Rudolf Bultmann is European Christianity in its present, anemic form. Actually, Bultmann was not solely responsible for what happened in the church on the Continent. He himself was part of a process that pre-dated him, yet, he was a highly visible and vocal spokesman of that movement away from traditional, biblical Christianity in Europe.
Yet, Christianity in Europe is not dead. In a recent "Breakpoint" commentary, Chuck Colson noted signs of renewed interest in Christianity among the Dutch. He pointed out "the remarkable critical and commercial success of a number of openly Christian writers." Colson further remarked that one "of those books, Kneeling on a Bed of Roses, by Calvinist author Jan Siebelink, was the second-best selling Dutch book of the past decade."
What was the no. 1 best seller? A new Dutch translation of the Bible. This edition "sold 500,000 copies in a nation of 16 million people: the equivalent of 10 million copies in the United States. Can those sales figures be a sign the Dutch are looking for "new" answers to their present-day dilemmas?
The secularization of Europe after WWII was made easy as the church, especially Evangelical, allowed itself to be marginalized, trivialized, and, thus, make unimportant to the debates of late 20th century Europe. No longer would social issues be decided on the basis of historic Christian principles that had undergirded European culture for over a thousand years. The socialization of European states and the liberalization of social policies progressed unimpeded by biblical values. The goal of those processes was to supply Europeans with whatever material needs they had and to rid them of guilt by allowing virtually any behavior.
Holland has led the march to liberalized social policies. Same-sex marriage, prostitution, drugs, euthanasia, and abortion were legalized. What did that freedom from ethical restraint bring to Europe? The family is in deep trouble in Europe, with birth rates in decades old declines. Did Europeans find happiness and fulfillment in their new, anything-goes societies? Not hardly. Colson pointed out that in Europe, "suicide rates between four and sixteen times higher than that of ‘less developed’ European countries and the United States" is the reality. So much for the socialist paradise.
Has America seen similar things? As a nation, we are in the midst of an epidemic of births to unwed mothers and a STD rate that is appalling. This new "sexual freedom" (read: sexual slavery) has produced a tragic result for teens. In one study, 47% percent of high school students surveyed reported having had intercourse in the last month; 45% reported drinking alcohol and 22% marijuana in that same period. One-third of those polled said reported having had feelings of sadness and hopelessness. College counselors report that depression on college campuses has doubled over the past decade and instances of suicide have tripled. An University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study showed that among teen girls, sex and drug use led to depression, not vice versa.
No one needs convincing that our public high schools, colleges and universities are committed to the safe-sex philosophy. As an approach to human sexuality, safe-sex is not working, and the emotional baggage young women must carry as a result of sexual promiscuity. Further, the negative physical consequences for young women with respect to child-bearing must be considered as well. Far from being a panacea, indiscriminate sexual activity is an emotional hell.
So, what does all this have to do with the sufficiency of Scripture. The Dutch provide the answer. In a society that had become almost totally secularized, human beings lost hope and direction. The rationalization of man’s spiritual side as somehow a holdover from his ancient, less civilized past was shown to be empty and void. Now, those who live in a culture with no boundaries are looking for boundaries, limits, and authoritative answers.
The writer of Proverbs wrote, "Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law" (Proverbs 29:18). The vision, in Hebrew, is a word or an oracle from God. Those who have no word from God are unrestrained (from a word meaning to break out). Without godly guidance, people break all the rules, cross all the boundaries. Yet, those who keep, observe the law are happy. So, observing the principles of the Bible brings one happiness and fulfillment. Many who once were disabused of that notion are now changing their minds.
Yet, Christianity in Europe is not dead. In a recent "Breakpoint" commentary, Chuck Colson noted signs of renewed interest in Christianity among the Dutch. He pointed out "the remarkable critical and commercial success of a number of openly Christian writers." Colson further remarked that one "of those books, Kneeling on a Bed of Roses, by Calvinist author Jan Siebelink, was the second-best selling Dutch book of the past decade."
What was the no. 1 best seller? A new Dutch translation of the Bible. This edition "sold 500,000 copies in a nation of 16 million people: the equivalent of 10 million copies in the United States. Can those sales figures be a sign the Dutch are looking for "new" answers to their present-day dilemmas?
The secularization of Europe after WWII was made easy as the church, especially Evangelical, allowed itself to be marginalized, trivialized, and, thus, make unimportant to the debates of late 20th century Europe. No longer would social issues be decided on the basis of historic Christian principles that had undergirded European culture for over a thousand years. The socialization of European states and the liberalization of social policies progressed unimpeded by biblical values. The goal of those processes was to supply Europeans with whatever material needs they had and to rid them of guilt by allowing virtually any behavior.
Holland has led the march to liberalized social policies. Same-sex marriage, prostitution, drugs, euthanasia, and abortion were legalized. What did that freedom from ethical restraint bring to Europe? The family is in deep trouble in Europe, with birth rates in decades old declines. Did Europeans find happiness and fulfillment in their new, anything-goes societies? Not hardly. Colson pointed out that in Europe, "suicide rates between four and sixteen times higher than that of ‘less developed’ European countries and the United States" is the reality. So much for the socialist paradise.
Has America seen similar things? As a nation, we are in the midst of an epidemic of births to unwed mothers and a STD rate that is appalling. This new "sexual freedom" (read: sexual slavery) has produced a tragic result for teens. In one study, 47% percent of high school students surveyed reported having had intercourse in the last month; 45% reported drinking alcohol and 22% marijuana in that same period. One-third of those polled said reported having had feelings of sadness and hopelessness. College counselors report that depression on college campuses has doubled over the past decade and instances of suicide have tripled. An University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study showed that among teen girls, sex and drug use led to depression, not vice versa.
No one needs convincing that our public high schools, colleges and universities are committed to the safe-sex philosophy. As an approach to human sexuality, safe-sex is not working, and the emotional baggage young women must carry as a result of sexual promiscuity. Further, the negative physical consequences for young women with respect to child-bearing must be considered as well. Far from being a panacea, indiscriminate sexual activity is an emotional hell.
So, what does all this have to do with the sufficiency of Scripture. The Dutch provide the answer. In a society that had become almost totally secularized, human beings lost hope and direction. The rationalization of man’s spiritual side as somehow a holdover from his ancient, less civilized past was shown to be empty and void. Now, those who live in a culture with no boundaries are looking for boundaries, limits, and authoritative answers.
The writer of Proverbs wrote, "Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law" (Proverbs 29:18). The vision, in Hebrew, is a word or an oracle from God. Those who have no word from God are unrestrained (from a word meaning to break out). Without godly guidance, people break all the rules, cross all the boundaries. Yet, those who keep, observe the law are happy. So, observing the principles of the Bible brings one happiness and fulfillment. Many who once were disabused of that notion are now changing their minds.
Study 37 “Who Is Wise?” Part 8
A liner note on the back cover of Rudolf Bultmann’s book "Jesus Christ and Mythology" declared, "Few men have exerted more influence over the course of modern theology than Rudolf Bultmann." Disagreement with that statement among scholars is hard to find. Yet, the influence of Bultmann has not always been positive. Some of his thoughts have been quite detrimental.
Criticism aimed at Bultmann has been in some points deserved, at other points undeserved. Most upsetting for many has been his view of Scripture.
For instance, Bultmann wrote, "The fact that the word of the Scriptures is God’s Word cannot be demonstrated objectively; it is an event which happens here and now. God’s Word is hidden in the Scriptures as each action of God is hidden everywhere." Later, he stated, "The idea of the omnipresent and almighty God becomes real in my personal existence only by His Word spoken here and now. Accordingly it must be said that the Word of God is what it is only in the moment in which it is spoken. The Word of God is not a timeless statement but a concrete word addressed to men here and now. . . . It is His Word as an event, in an encounter, not as a set of ideas, . . ."*
I would agree that demonstrating objectively that Scripture is God’s Word is impossible; as with God himself, we accept both the Word and the Author of the Word on the basis of faith. Were objective proof to be found, evidence both incontrovertible and undeniable, belief in God would be universal. Remember, though, Jesus commended faith in the absence of seeing. In other words, you do not need proof to trust God.
But what of Bultmann’s contention that the Word of God is a here and now event, an encounter? For Bultmann, God’s Word was God’s Word "only in the moment in which it is spoken." Further, this Word is hidden in Scripture, thus, Scripture is not God’s Word, only the house in which the Word dwells, sometimes in a backroom into which only a few have or are granted access.
I do not intend to critique Bultmann’s works or his theology. Better minds than mine have wrestled successfully and unsuccessfully with Bultmann’s positions. I wish instead to suggest something about his spiritual struggle. He made a telling statement early in "Mythology." "For modern man, the mythological conception of the world, the conceptions of eschatology, of redeemer and of redemption, are over and done with."* Bultmann saw his task in part as finding those statements in Scripture which would not be "stumbling-blocks to modern man." Here is found the original "seeker sensitive" mentality. Cut out of Scripture what offends.
Actually, Bultmann was trying to come to terms with faith in the face of his modern man’s doubting mind. He saw modern science as having put to rest all the simple myths of earlier civilizations. If some of those pesky miracle stories and tales of eschatological redeemers could be put forgotten, all would be okay. Obviously, heaven and hell are mythological, being nothing more than childish explanations for simple minds concerning one’s state after death. Did Bultmann believe in heaven or hell? I don’t know.
Once Bultmann, though, had started weeding out the myths that were "stumbling-blocks" to his "modern" mind, he found he did not have much left to play with. Yet, even as he set aside the notion that Scripture is somehow uniquely God’s Word in written form, "myths" and all, he was forced to find a replacement. Since no one can prove God exists, Jesus died and was resurrected, and that Scripture is truly God’s Word, what is man left with? Obviously, Bultmann could not see beyond this life. So, we are left only with the moment; we are alive only now. Thus, if we are to encounter God, we must encounter him in the moment.
I wonder where God goes when he is not meeting us in the moment of time in which we exist? Is he dependent upon man’s experience of him to be real? Where is the Word, the one Isaiah declared would not pass away, nor return to God void?
Bultmann’s problem was with faith. He had become man-centered. Since he could not devise an argument for a pre-existent God, he then had to devise a God he could contain within his own mind. Based on his experience, he defined his own theology. Modern day "God is still speaking" proponents find themselves in the same bed as Bultmann. While they came to where they are from different directions, they ended up in the same place. Scripture is not enough; Scripture explains nothing. Only in our experience can we truly know God and his Word.
Believing God is eternal, and thus, that His Word is as well, requires not existential or experiential proof. All that is required is faith. The writer of Hebrews stated the case as follows. "By faith we believe that the worlds were made by the spoken word of God, resulting in seen things not being made from what is visible" (Heb. 11.3). In other words, God called into existence something from nothing, as it were. We do not try to prove creation, we believe; we trust God’s witness in His Word that such is the case. So much for the modern scientific mind.
*Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, Prentice Hall, 1958, pp. 71 & 79.
*p. 17
Criticism aimed at Bultmann has been in some points deserved, at other points undeserved. Most upsetting for many has been his view of Scripture.
For instance, Bultmann wrote, "The fact that the word of the Scriptures is God’s Word cannot be demonstrated objectively; it is an event which happens here and now. God’s Word is hidden in the Scriptures as each action of God is hidden everywhere." Later, he stated, "The idea of the omnipresent and almighty God becomes real in my personal existence only by His Word spoken here and now. Accordingly it must be said that the Word of God is what it is only in the moment in which it is spoken. The Word of God is not a timeless statement but a concrete word addressed to men here and now. . . . It is His Word as an event, in an encounter, not as a set of ideas, . . ."*
I would agree that demonstrating objectively that Scripture is God’s Word is impossible; as with God himself, we accept both the Word and the Author of the Word on the basis of faith. Were objective proof to be found, evidence both incontrovertible and undeniable, belief in God would be universal. Remember, though, Jesus commended faith in the absence of seeing. In other words, you do not need proof to trust God.
But what of Bultmann’s contention that the Word of God is a here and now event, an encounter? For Bultmann, God’s Word was God’s Word "only in the moment in which it is spoken." Further, this Word is hidden in Scripture, thus, Scripture is not God’s Word, only the house in which the Word dwells, sometimes in a backroom into which only a few have or are granted access.
I do not intend to critique Bultmann’s works or his theology. Better minds than mine have wrestled successfully and unsuccessfully with Bultmann’s positions. I wish instead to suggest something about his spiritual struggle. He made a telling statement early in "Mythology." "For modern man, the mythological conception of the world, the conceptions of eschatology, of redeemer and of redemption, are over and done with."* Bultmann saw his task in part as finding those statements in Scripture which would not be "stumbling-blocks to modern man." Here is found the original "seeker sensitive" mentality. Cut out of Scripture what offends.
Actually, Bultmann was trying to come to terms with faith in the face of his modern man’s doubting mind. He saw modern science as having put to rest all the simple myths of earlier civilizations. If some of those pesky miracle stories and tales of eschatological redeemers could be put forgotten, all would be okay. Obviously, heaven and hell are mythological, being nothing more than childish explanations for simple minds concerning one’s state after death. Did Bultmann believe in heaven or hell? I don’t know.
Once Bultmann, though, had started weeding out the myths that were "stumbling-blocks" to his "modern" mind, he found he did not have much left to play with. Yet, even as he set aside the notion that Scripture is somehow uniquely God’s Word in written form, "myths" and all, he was forced to find a replacement. Since no one can prove God exists, Jesus died and was resurrected, and that Scripture is truly God’s Word, what is man left with? Obviously, Bultmann could not see beyond this life. So, we are left only with the moment; we are alive only now. Thus, if we are to encounter God, we must encounter him in the moment.
I wonder where God goes when he is not meeting us in the moment of time in which we exist? Is he dependent upon man’s experience of him to be real? Where is the Word, the one Isaiah declared would not pass away, nor return to God void?
Bultmann’s problem was with faith. He had become man-centered. Since he could not devise an argument for a pre-existent God, he then had to devise a God he could contain within his own mind. Based on his experience, he defined his own theology. Modern day "God is still speaking" proponents find themselves in the same bed as Bultmann. While they came to where they are from different directions, they ended up in the same place. Scripture is not enough; Scripture explains nothing. Only in our experience can we truly know God and his Word.
Believing God is eternal, and thus, that His Word is as well, requires not existential or experiential proof. All that is required is faith. The writer of Hebrews stated the case as follows. "By faith we believe that the worlds were made by the spoken word of God, resulting in seen things not being made from what is visible" (Heb. 11.3). In other words, God called into existence something from nothing, as it were. We do not try to prove creation, we believe; we trust God’s witness in His Word that such is the case. So much for the modern scientific mind.
*Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, Prentice Hall, 1958, pp. 71 & 79.
*p. 17
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)